I want to take a moment to introduce a new line into discussion – there is a historical context to what we are doing.
I am a single lone psychologist working all by myself from Southern California, and I am having a significant impact on a 40-year-long, impossible-to-solve pathology in the family court system.
Love me or hate me, I’m having impact.
How? How is one lone person accomplishing what has eluded all other professionals for 40 years – a solution.
How am I doing this?
The “how” of AB-PA and Dr. Childress is going to generate a lot of professional discussion and analysis once the dust settles. This interest will be in the field of Internet psychology.
First, AB-PA, by itself is going to generate a ton of research beginning in about five years and then over the following decade, once the paradigm shifts. We’ll be hoping to spearhead this research at two university-based training sites for court-involved clinical psychology. This will be using AB-PA as the foundation for research (not “proving” AB-PA; AB-PA doesn’t need “proving” – I’ll discuss this elsewhere).
But even more intriguing for PsyD doctoral student dissertations will be an analysis of HOW I accomplished what I did, and on the analysis of the pathogen’s actions and revealed structure. I predict at least one entire dissertation on: “AB-PA and the Gardnerian PAS Experts” and a second entire dissertation on “The Gardnerian Pathogen”.
The flying monkey phenomenon (with extensions into malignant narcissism and gang stalking) offers a third entire dissertation. This would be an excellent dissertation – 100% publishable – use personality disorder journals for submission, framing the flying monkey ally phenomenon as a feature of narcissistic-borderline pathology (unresolved trauma; vicarious resolution of childhood trauma).
Everything we are doing is documented. All of my blogs, the Gardnerian blogs, these Facebook posts, everything has a documented record, perfect for dissertation research – data without the hassle of running subjects; just sit at home and collect “archival data” from the Internet, perfect for a student.
One of the more interesting structures for a dissertation question is whether the Gardnerian PAS model was in (unconscious-preconscious) collusion with the pathogen. That’s an interesting premise question – was Gardner an unconscious ally of the pathogen or its adversary? – Was he used or abused?
If this is a trans-generational transmission of a sex abuse incest pathogen (as Dr. Childress proposes), it’s intriguing that Gardner emphasized the false allegations of sex abuse (that generated substantial controversy) and then compounded the controversy by making very inappropriate and incorrect statements about child motivations for incest and sexual abuse. Why did Gardner overlook the narcissistic-domestic violence variant of the pathology of the abusive husband and victimized wife?
The psychology question is, why was Gardner focused on the sex abuse component? Perhaps because of his own unresolved family of origin “mommy issues” that were finding display in his focus. He was Freudian from what I hear, so all sorts of Oedipal stuff becomes relevant. Absence of frontal lobe executive function systems for logical reasoning… clearly he has the pathogen. An interesting dissertation: “Gardner: An Unconscious Ally or Failed Adversary?”
That sort of analysis would look at how the Gardner PAS model disabled actual knowledge (attachment – family systems therapy – trauma – personality pathology) from reaching your families, and on how no one was motivated to seek an established definition for the pathology.
This type of dissertation research will look at specific people who should have known – but didn’t. Why not? Why did no one make the effort?
So there will be one level of analysis as to whether Gardner himself was unconsciously used by the pathogen (maybe; there are arguments on both sides), and then a second level of argument as to whether his followers, the “PAS experts,” were used by the pathogen (yes).
The central line for this type of dissertation will be on the “sides” created by the splitting pathology (narcissistic-borderline pathology) into the “opposing sides” of professional psychology Gardner vs non-Gardner; and on how this was a false (fabricated) argument because neither one actually solves the pathology, they just remain in eternal circular conflict and failure to solve.
If professional psychology doesn’t go to Gardner, then Bowlby-Minuchin-Beck – established psychology – fully solves the pathology. Gardner’s PAS prevented (and prevents) solution by diverting psychology AWAY from established knowledge – Bowlby-Minuchin-Beck – which will fully solve the pathology – into a completely inadequate model for pathology.
I don’t expect these types of dissertations until after I’m dead, but they’re easy enough to do. Blogs offer great written material for analysis, Facebook leaves a documentation trail.
I have two audiences for all of my Internet writing; current people and future dissertations. I fully expect all professional people to be subjected to the full 20-20 hindsight critique of professional psychology once this is solved and the dust settles. APA that includes you. Mercer, that includes you. Woodall, Bernet, that includes you.
How are you going to be seen in future dissertations and in the hindsight of history? That becomes a consideration. And history will remember you by name as a feature of the pathology. I imagine there will be a whole section of a dissertation describing the failure of the PASG to act, and the role of Bill Bernet in that. They’ll look at all the discussion of AB-PA in the PASG and compare it to my blogs asking for help.
Everything and everyone – is going to be open for scrutiny and critique from the cold retrospective hindsight of history.
There is going to be a lot of historical attention paid to what we are doing right now, and all of our decisions will be subjected to intense scrutiny from the 20-20 vision of hindsight – Karen Woodall’s statements (and shifting positions across time), Bill Bernet’s decisions to reject AB-PA (the established knowledge of professional psychology), the minor’s counsel documented record of attack, and the APA’s complicity in the abuse of parents and children by the rampant and unchecked ignorance and incompetence of forensic psychology.
Everything is documented.
I love the Internet. Did you know my initial expertise was in Internet psychology? That was my dissertation – Internet Psychology.
Early in my doctoral career I was an invited presenter at a World Health Organization conference in Munich on Internet Psychology, and I was an invited presenter regarding Internet Psychology at a professional working group convened by the American Academy for the Advancement of Science in Washington, DC . Expenses paid – not like a convention presentation.
I’m using that knowledge about Internet psychology. That’s going to be another wonderful dissertation for some doctoral student, how Dr. Childress used the Internet to create change in forensic psychology and the family court system. My suggestion to the student is to organize by type of media – online video — website – blog – Facebook.
Then there’s my personal journal article writing. I haven’t started writing my articles yet. I’ve been too busy getting the solution in place that my time was better spent on things other than journal articles. That’s changing.
In 2019, most everything is in place now, so my writing will take a higher priority. I’ll start with an ethics journal article, then a trauma article and a psychoanalytic article. So my personal writing for journals will start to pick up starting in 2019 and continuing through 2025.
So far, none of this has been Dr. Childress. AB-PA is Bowlby-Minuchin-Beck.
I anticipate writing my Dr. Childress stuff beginning in about 2022. It’ll be on the trauma pathogen and the “matrix of abuse” created in forensic psychology. That is going to be an interesting book. It’ll be 100% Dr. Childress, unlike everything up till now which has been 0% Dr. C. But I’ve got a lot to write before that, all my 2019 stuff – the 2020 stuff will be really good; that’s when I anticipate I’ll be able to open the psychoanalytic stuff (that will be some great-great stuff).
So pathogen allies – be aware. Everything you do is documented and everything you do will be subjected to the scrutiny of history – you, by name – your personal role in either creating the solution or in obstructing solution, and your role in continuing the abuse of children and the emotional violence inflicted against their parents, or in ending it, will be known. You. By name.
The pathogen has three defenses, it hides, it seeks allies, and it attacks threats with great viciousness. We are going to expose the pathogen when it attacks – and we are going to expose it’s allies – by name. Or, more accurately… they will expose themselves – individually – by name.
They will expose themselves. For the Internet Psychology student doing your dissertation, I call them trap-memes that activate on attack (there’s a cute origin for that name, trap-meme that activates on attack. If you get your dissertation committee up before I’m dead, email me and I’ll tell you the origin for this term).
The cold light of history will offer a stern critique of everyone in this time of change and solution – and everything is documented. Everyone is on record – and have been on record.
Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857